The perception of wellbeing in society.

If television news channels are showing news with so much of consideration for the suffering, then they are also feeling as uneasy as those suffering. However, if people who are materially, and socially well off, can have nightmares, then both the materially well off, and the not so well off, are in the same boat. Are the materially well off to comfort other people's nightmares, when they are experiencing nightmares themselves? The poor have their reasons, for their nightmares, and so do the rich. If being rich does not guarantee happiness, then neither does being poor. What is the in between? Perhaps, when we are neither rich, nor poor? When are we neither rich nor poor? When a person is neither rich nor poor, is the mindset of the individual. A person who is neither rich nor poor, is affected by richness and poorness, which means, that we all are both rich and poor. If a man says, that he is in want, whether he be less or more well off materially, we may be more considerate towards the less materially well off, and less considerate towards the more materially well off. A person who is better off materially, is considerate towards the poor, by not comparing his own well being, negatively, when comparing the well being of the poor to his own well being. But, if a person is making efforts towards wealth, be sure, that he compares himself negatively to others, in terms of wealth. How can one be considerate towards, only the poor? The rich may feel, that they have a choice. The poor feel that they have no choice. The rich are insecure in choices, and the poor are insecure in no choices. Those who were poor, may be rich, but how have the once poor, helped the now rich, and vice versa? have those who were once poor, helped their fellow rich to be less insecure? Have those who were once rich, now poor, done the same for the poor?

Can the world relate with itself?

I believe, that the world can relate with itself, and that it is relating with itself. But, perhaps, civilization's relation to the surroundings of it's habitat, should not be measured. We perhaps, are trying to quantify our relation to our habitat. By quantity, I imply measure. We are obsessed with the measure of our perceptions. We do not perceive the perception, that we estimate, all the time, and we try to definitely estimate our perceptions, which are not constant. How can the world relate to the self? The question may be, alternately, How can I relate to the world? The more I relate, the less I need to relate. Every civilization represented on the globe, has it's virtues. These virtues must not exist, because they must, but because they exist. If these virtues exist, does one need to perceive the virtues? If I am peaceful, then I would rather not be reminded that I am peaceful. If I am not, then I am reminded of peace. Perhaps, if we can not justify ourselves, to ourselves, and to others, then, we will reach where civilization can attain. A person may not justify death, birth, and other phenomenon, because the justification will make him secure, in his estimation. When there is no justification, then there is peace. This is my humble expression.

Perceptions on a Nation's greatness.

If a country has to exhibit it's greatness, then how does one empathize with the perception of the greatness? If greatness can be perceived, and not perceived, then it is not the consideration of the perceived greatness, but the consideration of the perception. If perceptions of greatness change, then perhaps, perceptions are moving. In an environment, where greatness is extolled, there must be an understanding, of the greatness which is expressed. I find it preferable, not to understand.

My impressions on The Second World War.

In my opinion, there was no benefit for any party, after the second world war, as it should be. There were acts of aggression instigated by all nations, except the United States. The Japanese attacked the United States, when it should have normalized relationship with her. Japanese interests were in Asia, but even then she should not have used aggression. England, was at a disadvantage. She was controlling territory, for example, Burma, in Asia, and she was a small nation in territory, although an earnest nation in her people. She had decided to give up her claims in Asia, or at least the political circles in England had, except for those who followed Winston Churchill's peacetime plans. She decided on this course of action, perhaps, before the Second World War, when Hitler gained prominence. A valuable part of her armed forces was stationed in India. If the Japanese had concentrated on her interests in Asia, I do not believe, that English resistance would have endured in Asia. And, I am sure, British practical thought would have accepted, that the English military presence was misplaced in South, South-East Asia. However, Japanese inappropriateness in her military actions in Burma, Korea, and against the British Armed Forces, strengthened that Dogged, and brave nation England's resolve. I believe, if The United States was not attacked, England would have attacked Germany, in the scenario just mentioned earlier. There was no need for Germany to attack the British Isles, in any situation, and instigate her hostility. If I were Japan, I would have only considered aggression, if I had friends in Asia, who needed military assistance. I am sure, that in hindsight, the political thought in England today feels that it benefited by her major withdrawal of her military presence from Asia, then. Japan could then have assisted the Asian Nations, and withdrawn. Japan then could have assuaged English feelings in the best manner possible. England was a reasonable and practical nation, but she was justifying her presence in Asia, which was not to her interest, keeping in mind Adolf Hitler. Even if Hitler had not risen in German politics, England would have been strained. The Indian Army under the British, was greater in number than the British Army, in peacetime. Indian Industry was accepting western technology. A pioneer in this regard was the House of Tata & sons. India, under British rule, would have benefited more industrially, than England, and perhaps, England would have left India to her considerable fate, more gracefully, in the future, then. This is all hindsight. Japan, and all the nations involved in the Second World War, did great disservice to themselves, in the aftermath of the war. This was to the extent, that the Allies did not trust each other after the war. The United States cannot be blamed for entering the war, but she did use atomic weapon technology in war. Perhaps, the Japanese would have fought on, if The United States had not used atomic weapon technology.